It's not weird or flawed. It's a narrow study. To me it looks well designed, and they even made sure the solution was one of the first Google results. It's showing they are worse than Google at that specific type of search. You don't get to call it a ####ty study because they made specific choices to test one thing. Do you understand how science works?
And FWIW there are many times I take a snippet of text and search for it to find the source. This isn't an unusual thing to do. And since you want a link to the primary source, it's valuable to get it right. This study shows you can't trust an LLM to do that reliably.
Also, your stock search came back with flawed results. I'd be interested to know where that (4 or 6) link leads to, as Tesla closed at 222, not 227. And if you have to fact check all the sources, is it really providing value?
|